You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Binomial logistic regressiona for factors associated with non-utilization of ‘Chiranjeevi Yojana (CY)’ b among eligible womenc in three districtsd of Gujarat, India (Jan-July 2013) (N=1707)e

From: Utilization of the state led public private partnership program “Chiranjeevi Yojana” to promote facility births in Gujarat, India: a cross sectional community based study

Variablef   Crude OR (95 % CI) Adjusted OR (95 % CI) g
Socio-demographic characteristics    
 Eligibility criteria h    
  BPL or ST 3.4 (2.7, 4.3) 3.1 (2.4, 3.8)
  BPL and ST Reference Reference
 Age    
  18–25 Reference Reference
  >25 1.0 (0.8, 1.2) 0.98 (0.8, 1.2)
 Education    
  No Education 2.0 (1.5, 2.8) 1.6 (1.1, 2.2)
  Pri. Education 1.7 (1,1, 2.7) 1.2 (0.8, 1.9)
  Sec. Education 1.1 (0.8, 1.5) 1.0 (0.7, 1.4)
  ≥ Higher Sec. Reference Reference
 Standard of living index    
  1st quintile Reference -
  2nd quintile 1.2 (0.8, 1.6) -
  3rd quintile 1.2 (0.9, 1.6) -
  4th quintile 1.5 (1.1, 2.0) -
  5th quintile 1.5 (1.1, 2.0) -
Pregnancy related characteristics    
 Parity    
  Primipara Reference -
  Multipara 1.2 (0.99, 1.5) -
 Antenatal visits    
  No 1.3 (0.9, 1.9) -
  <3 visits 1.3 (1.02, 1.8) -
  ≥ 3 visits Reference -
 Antenatal complication    
  No Reference -
  Yes 1.8 (1.1, 2.9) -
Delivery type    
  Vaginal Reference Reference
  C-Section 2.3 (1.3, 4.1) 2.1 (1.2, 3.8)
  1. aForward LR method with CY non-utilization as outcome; bdemand side financing scheme to increase institutional delivery among socially disadvantaged population; cwomen belonging to socially disadvantaged population; dDahod, Sabarkantha, Surendranagar; eWomen who delivered in Government facility were excluded; fvariables with bivariate p<0.2 shown in table, gStandard of living, parity, ANC visits and ANC complications had high collinearity with delivery type and were therefore not included in the model, hsociallydisadvantaged groups which includes both schedule tribes and below poverty line
  2. Model chi square: 134.6, df: 12, p<0.001; Pseudo Rsquare: 0.06; Hosmer and Lemeshow Chi square: 8.15, df: 8, p=0.419
  3. OR mentioned as bold are significant values in the model